harmony-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "chunrong lai" <chunrong...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [vote] Declare r711744 as M8
Date Thu, 13 Nov 2008 14:24:17 GMT
Yes. It is my final version, as the option (2) we discussed before.
I just checked the snapshot uploading. The linux snapshots have been
uploaded while the windows snapshots have not.
Thanks.
On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 10:03 PM, Tim Ellison <t.p.ellison@gmail.com> wrote:

> I'm just trying to figure out if r713673 is the final version from
> chunrong -- then we can all be testing it again.
>
> Regards,
> Tim
>
> Pavel Pervov wrote:
> > +1 for (2)
> >
> > WBR,
> >     Pavel.
> >
> > On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 10:09 AM, Sean Qiu <sean.xx.qiu@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >> option 2 sounds reasonable for me, anyway quality overweigh others.
> >>
> >> +1 for (2) in addition to Sian's comment.
> >>
> >> 2008/11/12 Sian January <sianjanuary@googlemail.com>
> >>
> >>> Presumably with option (2) we would still run the Harmony Classlib and
> >>> DRLVM test suites as part of the build?  If so, then (2) would be my
> >>> preference.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> 2008/11/12 Aleksey Shipilev <aleksey.shipilev@gmail.com>:
> >>>> Tim, I see the good point in your explanation too.
> >>>>
> >>>> So we need to consider three options:
> >>>>  Option 1. Go with r711744 as M8. It is already tested, so just
> solidify
> >>> build.
> >>>>  Option 2. Fix H6013, declare r711744 + H6013 as M8, presume the
> >>>> impact locality, solidify the build.
> >>>>  Option 3. Fix H6013, declare r711744 + H6013 as M8, re-spin the
> >>>> tests, solidify the build.
> >>>>
> >>>> I'm voting for (3). I would be glad to be proved wrong on my concerns,
> >>>> actually I would be pleased with that :)
> >>>> Maybe just arrange a vote again?
> >>>>
> >>>> Thanks,
> >>>> Aleksey.
> >>>>
> >>>> On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 3:39 PM, Tim Ellison <t.p.ellison@gmail.com>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>>> Aleksey Shipilev wrote:
> >>>>>> On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 2:17 PM, Tim Ellison <t.p.ellison@gmail.com
> >
> >>> wrote:
> >>>>>>> Can you think of a situation when the null check will introduce
> some
> >>>>>>> instability or regression?
> >>>>>> I actually persuaded by Chunrong's point -- that's double checking,
> so
> >>>>>> no problems should occur.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> As for introducing new bugs, consider the issue described in
> >>>>>> HARMONY-6013 is really covering some other deadly issue. Consider
> the
> >>>>>> workload where NPE is not firing because of H6013,
> >>>>> ...but the test doesn't silently work without the NPE, it causes
a
> trap.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> So we know that our tests don't currently cover the situation where
> we
> >>>>> would now expect to get a NPE, or they would be trapping today,
> right?
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> so after H6013 gets
> >>>>>> fixed the control flow in that workload is going differ than
in
> tested
> >>>>>> M8. As many uses of the helper, as many the chances the control
flow
> >>>>>> differs. Having that, we can't say the change is minor.
> >>>>> I appreciate that the code will appear in many places, but I think
it
> is
> >>>>> localized and we know the situation doesn't occur in current testing.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> That said, I'd rather run the two days + testing again rather than
> spend
> >>>>> two days arguing about it :-)
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> If I will be
> >>>>>> able eventually to say that similar changes are "limited
> >>>>>> impact"-issues, then you should employ me as oracle tester <g>
:)
> >>>>> lol
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Of course, that's the speculation if this is actually a double
null
> >>> checking.
> >>>>>> I just want not to guess while talking about milestones.
> >>>>> ack - like I said, if people think we should re-spin the build and
> >>>>> retest, then I'm ok with that too.  It would be the conservative
> >>> approach.
> >>>>> Regards,
> >>>>> Tim
> >>>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> Unless stated otherwise above:
> >>> IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with
> number
> >>> 741598.
> >>> Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6
> 3AU
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Best Regards
> >> Sean, Xiao Xia Qiu
> >>
> >> China Software Development Lab, IBM
> >>
> >
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message